ORDER : M. Seetharama Murti, J. This is a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders dated 27.02.2012 of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Visakhapatnam made in C.M.A. No.53 of 2011, whereby, the learned Additional District Judge while partly allowing the appeal and partly setting aside the order dated 20.9.2011 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili made in I.A.No.229 of 2011 in O.S.No.46 of 2011 directed both the parties to maintain status quo till final disposal of the suit. 2. The introductory facts, in brief, are as under: “The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant-My Home Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant company') for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant and it's men, servants, employees et cetera from ever interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties, i.e., dry lands, more fully described in Plots 1 to 6 of the schedule annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff had also sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore Plot No.1 to its original shape and height and other consequential reliefs on failure of the defendant to comply with the mandatory directions. The defendant company had filed a written statement and is resisting the suit. The plaintiff had also filed I.A.No.229 of 2011 for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant company and its men from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The trial Court had dismissed the application of the plaintiff. However, the learned Additional District Judge had partly allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and had directed both the parties to maintain status quo pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved of the said orders, the defendant had preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition.” 3. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in brief, is as follows: 'The plaintiff is the owner of Ac.3.80 cents of land situated in six plots shown in the plaint schedule covered by patta No.59 (1-B), of Survey No.26 of Bayyavaram village. The total extent of land covered by Sy.No.26 is Ac.8.94 cents. The family of the plaintiff represented by the plaintiff's father Ramulu has got several properties. The total extent of land covered by Sy.No.26 is Ac.8.94 cents. The family of the plaintiff represented by the plaintiff's father Ramulu has got several properties. The plaintiff, his brother Ramunaidu and one Parvathi, the wife of the deceased brother of the plaintiff had gifted Ac.0.50 cents in favour of the sister of the plaintiff, under a registered gift deed dated 26.5.1976. The remaining Ac.8.44 cents covered by Sy.No.26 was partitioned along with other properties amongst the plaintiff, his brother Ramunaidu and sister-in-law. In the said partition, the plaintiff had got Ac.4.22 cents towards his share. Further, Ramunaidu gave Ac.0.14 cents to the plaintiff and took back an equivalent extent of land in another survey number. Thus, the plaintiff has got Ac.4.36 guntas towards his share in Survey No.26. However, the plaintiff had sold away Ac.0.56 cents to the defendant company under registered sale deed dated 27.6.2009. Therefore, the remaining extent of the plaintiff in Sy.No.26 is Ac.3.80 cents which is the present plaint schedule property. The defendant in collusion with Gonnabathula Srinivasrao, the adopted son of Rama Murthy and Parvathi i.e., the plaintiff's Aurasa son is creating documents with an intention to deprive the plaintiff of his right, title and possession in the schedule property. Any such documents are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property and is paying taxes. The plaintiff had also got pattadar pass book and title deed book. The defendant demanded the plaintiff to sell away the schedule property, but the plaintiff had refused to do so. On 19.04.2011, the defendant and his men came to the plaint schedule property and tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff could avert the same with the intervention of the elders. The defendant company is having political and money power and therefore, the plaintiff is not in a position to resist the illegal acts of the defendant company. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction and other reliefs and the instant application for temporary injunction.” 4. The Company Secretary and General Manager (Legal) of the defendant company had filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations and it is inter alia stated in the counter as follows: “The plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule property. The Company Secretary and General Manager (Legal) of the defendant company had filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations and it is inter alia stated in the counter as follows: “The plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has no right, title and possession over the same, much less in a property in an extent of Ac.3.80 cents shown in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff had executed a gift deed in favour of his grandson by name Gonnabathula Varaprasad @ Vasubabu for a land in an extent of Ac.0.48 cents in Sy.No.26 and delivered possession of the same to him at once. The plaintiff's grand son by name Gonnabathula Varaprasad @ Vasubabu, a minor represented by his mother and next friend had filed O.S.No.136 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili in respect of the above property and the said suit had ended in a compromise and by the Award of the Lok Adalat dated 04.7.2009. The defendant company for its development purpose, had purchased a total extent of Ac.5.04 cents in Sy.No.26 of Bayyavaram village out of total extent of Ac.8.94 cents under four registered sale deeds from its respective owners and took possession of the same at once, i.e., at the time of registration of sale deeds. From the dates of the sale deeds, the defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said extents of land mentioned in the sale deeds openly, continuously and uninterruptedly to the knowledge and exclusion of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had issued a notice dated 14.3.2011 stating about his right in Sy.No.26 with false allegations and the defendant gave a befitting reply dated 02.4.2011. The contents of the notice of the plaintiff are inconsistent with the averments in the plaint. The plaintiff had deliberately misrepresented the facts that G. Srinivasarao is adopted son of Rama Murthy and Parvathi, but, in fact, the truth is otherwise as the plaintiff who is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.136 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge had clearly admitted that the said Srinivasrao is his natural son and the said fact is fortified by the cause titles and averments in the plaint. Further, the registered gift deed dated 07.03.2009 confirmed the fact that the said Srinivasrao is the natural son of the plaintiff. Further, the registered gift deed dated 07.03.2009 confirmed the fact that the said Srinivasrao is the natural son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff suppressed the facts and cooked up a new case to suit the convenience and with an evil intention to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. The plaintiff had played fraud on the Court. Even the pattadar passbook, title deed book are brought into existence and the contents therein do not tally with the contents of the lawyers' notice got issued by the plaintiff on 14.03.2011 and the extents alienated by him were not written off from extents shown in the books. The plaint schedule is incorrect. The extent and boundaries of the properties in the plaint schedule do not tally with the extents and boundaries of the land on ground in Sy.No.26. The defendant is a public limited company. It had acquired lands in survey number 26 and other survey numbers from its owners and possessors having purchased under different registered sale deeds and also under the Land Acquisition Act through the Government of A.P for formation of a railway track as per the design approved by the Central Government [S.E.Railway]. The land in an extent of Ac.5.04 cents in Sy.No.26 of Bayyavaram village is converted from agricultural to industrial by the proceedings of the competent revenue authorities/Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasipatnam and against which no objection was raised by any person including the plaintiff. The suit is vexatious and frivolous. The petition is liable to be dismissed.” 5. At the time of enquiry, no oral evidence was adduced, but exhibits A1 to A11 and B1 to B14 were marked. 6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have carefully perused the material record and the record received from the courts below. 7. (a) In the application for temporary injunction, the initial onus as well as the legal burden is on the plaintiff to prove the khas lawful possession over the plaint schedule property and also to establish the legal requirements for grant of temporary injunction. Now, the question is - 'Whether the plaintiff had proved his pleaded case as required under facts and law and had satisfied the cardinal principles for grant of a temporary injunction as prayed for?' 7. Now, the question is - 'Whether the plaintiff had proved his pleaded case as required under facts and law and had satisfied the cardinal principles for grant of a temporary injunction as prayed for?' 7. (b) The case pleaded by the plaintiff in regard to the ownership and possession of the plaint schedule property in a total extent of Ac.3.80 cents is already stated supra, in detail. The defence is that the plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule property as claimed by him and that the plaintiff had suppressed the fact of exchange of notices before the suit and came to court with a false claim and had played fraud on the Court. It is also stated in the defence that the defendant is a public limited company and that it had acquired lands in survey number 26 and other survey numbers from its owners and possessors having purchased under different registered sale deeds and also under the Land Acquisition Act through the Government of A.P for formation of a railway track as per the design approved by the Central Government [S.E.Railway] and that the land in an extent of Ac.5.04 cents in Sy.No.26 of Bayyavaram village is converted from agricultural to industrial by the proceedings of the competent revenue authorities/Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasipatnam and that against which no objection was raised by any person including the plaintiff. 7. (c) Both the parties admit that the total extent of land in Sy.No.26 is Ac.8.94 cents. Now, the claim of the plaintiff is only in regard to Ac.3.80 cents. The plaintiff's claim to the said extent is based on the following submissions: 'The father of the plaintiff had purchased the land in Sy.No.26. On the death of the father of the plaintiff, the said property devolved upon the plaintiff, Ramunaidu and Parvathi who is the wife of another deceased brother of the plaintiff. In the partition, the said extent was divided into two shares between Ramunaidu and the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got Ac.4.22 cents towards his share. The plaintiff, his brother and his sister-in-law together gifted Ac.0.50 cents under registered gift deed to one of the sisters of the plaintiff even before the said partition. Further, Ramunaidu in exchange of Ac.0.14 cents in some other survey number gave to the plaintiff an equal extent of Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.26. Thus, the plaintiff claims Ac.4.36 cents. The plaintiff, his brother and his sister-in-law together gifted Ac.0.50 cents under registered gift deed to one of the sisters of the plaintiff even before the said partition. Further, Ramunaidu in exchange of Ac.0.14 cents in some other survey number gave to the plaintiff an equal extent of Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.26. Thus, the plaintiff claims Ac.4.36 cents. Be that as it may, even according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had sold Ac.0.56 cents to the defendant under regular registered sale deed. That is how the plaintiff claims incidental title and lawful possession in respect of Ac.3.80 cents in Sy.No.26, which is the plaint schedule property.' Whether this claim of the plaintiff in respect of the above extent of the plaint schedule property is true or not needs careful examination in view of the defence of the defendant, which is stated supra. It is necessary to mention that the case of the defendant is that the defendant had purchased in all Ac.5.04 cents out of Ac.8.20 cents in Sy.No.26 under exhibits B1 to B4, registered sale deeds. Exhibit B1 dated 28.3.2000 was executed by one T. Suresh and another in favour of the defendant. Under the said document, the defendant along with other properties purchased Ac.1.55 cents in Sy.No.26. Exhibit B3 is sale deed dated 27.6.2009 executed by G.Ramunaidu and others in favour of the defendant company and under the said document, the defendant had purchased Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No.26. Exhibit B4 is the sale deed dated 15.10.2009 executed by G.Ramunaidu, the brother of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and under the said sale deed, the defendant purchased Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.26. The total extent covered by the three sale deeds works out to Ac.3.21 cents. The above three sale deeds are not being disputed by the plaintiff herein. However, the plaintiff is disputing exhibit B2 sale deed dated 14.8.2008 executed by B.Srinivasarao, who is the son of the plaintiff, and another in favour of the defendant company; and under the said sale deed, the defendant company had purchased Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.26. If this extent is also added, the total extent of land purchased by the defendant company in Sy.No.26 works out to Ac.5.04 cents. Now, the plaintiff is disputing the right of Srinivasrao, the son of the plaintiff, to execute exhibit B2 sale deed and convey Ac.1.83 cents of land to the defendant company. If this extent is also added, the total extent of land purchased by the defendant company in Sy.No.26 works out to Ac.5.04 cents. Now, the plaintiff is disputing the right of Srinivasrao, the son of the plaintiff, to execute exhibit B2 sale deed and convey Ac.1.83 cents of land to the defendant company. It is the contention of the plaintiff that during the life time of the plaintiff, the son of the plaintiff Srinivasarao has no right to convey the property, on his own to the defendant company and that Srinivasarao had no exclusive and absolute title in respect of the property in an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.26, and that therefore, he could not have conveyed the title to the said extent to the defendant company. In fact, the plaintiff is admitting sale of Ac.0.56 cents to the defendant, vide Document dated 27.6.2009 (exhibit B3). In exhibit B2 dated 14.8.2008, the son of the plaintiff while tracing his title to the property had stated that in a partition, the said extent was allotted to him. Now coming to the notices exchanged, in the notice under exhibit B7 dated 14.3.2011, it is averred as under: “The plaintiff is having Ac.4.09 ½ cents of dry land in S.No.26 of P.Bayyavaram village in Yelamanchili Mandal.” It is obvious that the claim in this suit of the plaintiff is quite contrary to the above said claim in the notice. It is further averred in the notice that the plaintiff gave Ac.0.48 cents to his grandson under a compromise award passed by the Lok Adalat in case No.288 of 2009 in O.S.No.136 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Yelamanchili and that the plaintiff had sold away Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No.26 to the defendant company and that therefore, the plaintiff is having right, title and possession only in an extent of Ac.3.04 ½ cents of dry land. Therefore, the claim in the suit to an enhanced and larger extent of Ac.3.80 cents is quite contrary to the contents of the notice, which emanated from the plaintiff prior to the suit. Therefore, the claim in the suit to an enhanced and larger extent of Ac.3.80 cents is quite contrary to the contents of the notice, which emanated from the plaintiff prior to the suit. Even in the Lok Adalat award, dated 04.07.2009, which is exhibited as exhibit B9, in the terms of the compromise, it is averred as follows: “that the guardian and next friend of the minor plaintiff agreed and accepted the property of a total extent of Ac.3.09 cents covered by the registered gift settlement dated 07.03.2009 executed by the defendants towards the share of the plaintiff and as per the said document the 2nd defendant has to enjoy the said property till he is alive and thereafter, the minor plaintiff shall be the absolute owner of the above said property with full rights.” (reproduced verbatim). Exhibit B5, which is the gift settlement referred to in the Lok Adalat award on a perusal would show that the said document was executed in favour of the grandson of the plaintiff by the plaintiff and his son settling Ac.0.48 cents in Sy.No.26. The said aspect is not adverted to in the case pleaded by the plaintiff in this suit. Further, a perusal of exhibit A8, the gift settlement deed dated 23.9.1982, would show that Parvathi, the wife of the deceased brother of the plaintiff had executed the said settlement deed in favour of the son of the plaintiff Srinivasarao settling Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.148. Thus, on a careful analysis of the contents of all the documents with reference to the extents in Sy.No.26, it is laid bare that when the total extent of the said survey number is admittedly Ac.8.94 cents, the plaintiff could not explain as to how the plaintiff had remained to be the owner and possessor of Ac.3.80 cents and thus, it is obvious that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden and establish a prima facie case of incidental ownership and possession in regard to the said extent of property in Sy.No.26. The vendors under exhibits B1, who are third parties, have also executed the said sale deed in favour of the defendant company for various extents of lands covered by the schedule of the said document including land in Sy.No.26. The vendors under exhibits B1, who are third parties, have also executed the said sale deed in favour of the defendant company for various extents of lands covered by the schedule of the said document including land in Sy.No.26. It is not the case of the plaintiff that except the plaintiff and his brother, no other person is having ownership rights in the land in Sy.No.26. The vendors under exhibit B1 ought not to have executed the said sale deed for the extent of Ac.1.55 cents land in Sy.No.26 in favour of the defendant, if it is the contention of the plaintiff that except he and his brother, no other person has any property in Sy.No.26. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not questioning the said sale deed in favour of the defendant. Further, the lands are only dry lands. The defendant having acquired Ac.5.04 cents of land under exhibits B1 to B4 including the one executed by the son of the plaintiff, acted upon the said sale deeds and had obtained necessary permission from the competent authority concerned/Revenue Divisional officer for conversion of agricultural dry land into industrial lands. Exhibits B6, B11 to B14 are the relevant proceedings and documents, which culminated in the sanction of permission in favour of the defendant company to convert agricultural lands in to non-agricultural lands. In the said proceedings, the land covered by Sy.No.26 is also included. There is one more important aspect, which needs a mention. Exhibit A9 is the certified copy of cancellation of gift settlement deed bearing No.610 of 2009 in respect of certain items of land including one item in an extent of Ac.0.48 cents in Sy.No.26. The said cancellation deed was executed unilaterally for cancelling the gift settlement Deed bearing Document No.610 of 2009. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the said extent shall stand excluded from the alleged extent being claimed by the plaintiff is a contention, which merits consideration, prima facie. Thus, from a scrutiny of the documentary evidence, it is clear that the pattadar passbook and title deed book are not reflecting the correct extents and the transactions covered by registered documents are not reflecting in the entries of the said documents. Thus, from a scrutiny of the documentary evidence, it is clear that the pattadar passbook and title deed book are not reflecting the correct extents and the transactions covered by registered documents are not reflecting in the entries of the said documents. Therefore, having considered the various aspects as culled out from the documentary evidence, this Court is of the well-considered view that the plaintiff had failed to establish the prima facie case and also the balance of convenience. Most importantly, the plaintiff had suppressed the fact of exchange of notices between the parties prior to the suit and had not mentioned about the exchange of notices in the plaint and had also not filed the exchanged notices into Court. The notices exchanged are filed and exhibited by the defendant. The plaintiff could not explain before the Court as to how he could claim a larger extent than that was originally mentioned in the legal notice. The said fact and the documents referred to supra would reveal that the claim of the plaintiff, prima facie, cannot be countenanced, more particularly, in the absence of any explanation much less valid explanation in regard to the variation in the extents of land between the claim in the notice and the claim in the plaint in the present suit. The non-mention in the plaint about the notices exchanged prior to the suit and the unexplained conduct in making a claim for a larger extent in the plaint than that was mentioned by the plaintiff in the notice, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief, in the well considered view of this Court. Viewed thus, this Court finds that the plaintiff could not establish the necessary facts and also a prima facie case, which is a sine qua non, and is therefore, not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction. 7 (d) Be it noted that the trial Court had dismissed the application for injunction, having considered the facts and evidence on a proper perspective. 7 (d) Be it noted that the trial Court had dismissed the application for injunction, having considered the facts and evidence on a proper perspective. However, the learned Additional District Judge in the civil miscellaneous appeal in spite of recording a finding to the effect that the defendant is claiming Ac.1.83 cents under exhibit B2 through Srinivasarao, and that the defendant had established that the defendant had obtained permission under exhibits B11 to B13 to convert agricultural land to nonagricultural land had still granted status quo orders inter alia observing that irreparable loss would ensue if the digging operations are undertaken in the land during the pendency of the suit. When the plaintiff came to Court and sought temporary injunction in this application and had failed to prove his lawful possession in respect of the plaint schedule property and when the trial Court had dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff, the appellate Court ought not to have granted status quo having found that the defendant is in possession of Ac.1.83 cents having purchased the same under exhibit B2 and that the defendant had also obtained permission for conversion of land. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the Court below brooks interference and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the order of the trial Court is restored. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs. Having regard to the facts and submissions and the nature of the work the defendant intends to undertake and in view of the nature of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand dismissed.